Western Standard

The Shotgun Blog

« Poll shows majority believe the criminal offence of polygamy trumps freedom of religion | Main | Bob Rae, the gift that keeps on giving »

Sunday, April 27, 2008

Deport This Man, Today

Naeem Muhammad Khan has a Facebook account.  He lives in Toronto.  He is unemployed.  He’s also an avid Jihadist who arrived in this country less than two years ago.

Why is he still here?

While this nation is at war, he posts a banner on his Facebook page encouraging support for the Taliban and al-Qaeda.  He says that Osama Bin Laden is a “hero.”  He says that the reason that he’s here is because he’s free here to preach the Jihadist creed in a way that he wouldn’t be in most of the Moslem world.

Why is he still here?

The man is of no value to this country.  Given that he is unemployed, he is a drain on the Treasury.  He is worthless.  He is scum.  If we were a culture with the self-confidence to do what is morally right we would…  Well, I’ll stop there – lest I draw the scrutiny of the self-appointed defenders of the “rights” of our murderous enemies.

If you want to know why I have so little regard for this nation’s government, even under the present Administration, take a look at this man.  A nation so degraded, so enervated, that it cannot properly dispose of as odious a “man” as this isn’t worthy of respect.  A nation whose people so happily accept such a state of affairs is, in the words of Alexander Hamilton, “prepared for a master – and deserves one.”

So, I’m issuing a challenge to the Immigration Minister, Diane Finley.  One that I am hoping that others will pick up and echo: deport this man, today.

I realize that government doesn’t normally move at that pace.  But, of course, if can – if the appropriate fire is lit.  I am calling on the Immigration Minister – and for that matter the Prime Minister – to make people jump.  Go.  Arrest this man.  Put him on a plane.  Send him back to Pakistan.  There are other courses of action which would also be morally right and emotionally satisfying, but this one happens to be legal, so I’ll settle for that.

Prove me wrong.  Show me that this is still a country.  Tell the world that this is something more than an international flop-house for terrorists, criminals, the shiftless, and other assorted miscreants.  Honour those who do come here to make better lives by removing from their presence – as well as ours – such a wretched creature.

Not that I believe that they will.  As I have said before, this country is too far-gone for that.  Even under this, supposedly right-wing government, we don’t have the guts to face down the left.  Even if they did summon the courage to do something, he’d probably win in some damned court and be back here in a few years with $25 Million and an apology.

Speaking of odious individuals with a Facebook page, have you ever wondered what happened to Abdulkareem Khadr, the member of the famed Khadr al-Qaeda family who was badly wounded in a shoot-out with Pakistani forces where his father, a senior member of al-Qaeda, was killed?

Yes, for the record, the man I linked to is one and the same.  I corresponded with him briefly in the past, before he, if I were to guess, probably Googled my name and guessed that my intentions towards him were other-than-benign.  This member of the self-proclaimed al-Qaeda family, wounded while on the other side of the war that we are fighting, would seem to have spent the last few years enjoying the full benefits of my tax dollars – recovering his health through our health care system.  He attends Birchmount Park Collegiate in Toronto, where he is scheduled to graduate in a few months.  I’ll note that it’s a public school, as well.  Given his family’s unique background and that his father is dead, one wonders how they support themselves.  It wouldn’t be shocking to find that the boy is a leech on the taxpaying public in a third way as well.

He would seem to have friends.  One supposes that they’re ignorant or – given his notoriety it seems difficult to believe that they would be – they, like to many people in this country, view being on the other side as simply another lifestyle choice.  I thought about going up and down the list and asking the people if they know that they’re linked with Canada’s al-Qaeda family but, in the end, that would seem to be an empty exercise.  In all probability those people are lost just as this country is lost.

If no one in this country could rouse themselves to act against him – and the rest of his family – than Khan is probably perfectly safe.  One more step towards all of our graves.

As I have said before, leftism is AIDS for civilization.  All of that touchy-feely nonsense, all of those false doctrines – none of them is fatal in and of themselves.  Socialism is difficult to counter because, on the surface, the proposals are not directly harmful.  But, like HIV/AIDS, leftism attacks the immune system and wrecked the ability of the body to defend itself from what, under normal circumstances, would be minor irritants. 

Can this country be saved?  Not, I think, without a drastic change.  If our leaders – if our Conservative leaders – cannot rise to such a simple and obvious challenge, than how shall we ever save ourselves?  We’ll just continue our long process of bleeding out under the Liberals being alternated with the tourniquet of the Conservatives. 

Indeed, we lack even the hope of other endangered lands – such as France – that we might, in an hour of supreme emergency, turn back to other, darker traditions.  We are already too weak and divided for that.  Instead, our hopes must rest upon events – that some event or individual will bring about an awakening in this country which may once again give us the hope of brighter days. 

Posted by Adam T. Yoshida on April 27, 2008 in Canadian Politics | Permalink

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
https://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d834515b5d69e200e55216f7d38834

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Deport This Man, Today:

Comments

I'm afraid that this guy is'nt going anywhere.Unfortunately something really horrible will probably have to happen to wake
Canadians up.The liberals and their cbc stooges are going to go all out to defend this scumbag and his murdering buddy's.

Posted by: pessemist | 2008-04-28 12:55:20 AM


If a loser like you, Yoshida, hates this country so much, feel free to move out.

Good riddance.

Posted by: joe bleau | 2008-04-28 2:57:32 AM


Yoshida
Obstinacy and vehemency in opinion are the surest signs of stupidity.
Bernard Barton

Posted by: Jihadist for Allah | 2008-04-28 3:34:39 AM


All we can hope for is our Intelligence services are on full alert and keeping watch on anyone who expresses radical views. This dude, Khan, is not a friend of Canada. He supports the Taliban our Soldiers are fighting in Afghanistan while sitting on his unemployed arse. That's allowed in this free democracy and he knows it, calling himself a Canadian for convenience and sustenance.
Our doors swing both ways,no one is forced to remain here, but our laws have to be obeyed. These incognito"jihadists" are misfits in any Western Democracy and should not be trusted.

They remain here for all our perks and comforts and freedoms. None of which they would have in the
Islamic states they say wish to create.

We have a name from the Stewart Bell interview in the National Post but we can't put a face to it. Instead have a covered human head with peeking eyes, not the picture of a true Canadian. We can remember the name but that could change, happens all the time.

"Obstinacy and vehemency in opinion" perfectly describes jihadists. It described Nazis and any other extreme movement that threaten the safety and peace of the world.
People can believe what they want in any free society. The problems arise when they radicalize their followers and incite to hatred, terror and violence.

Posted by: Liz J | 2008-04-28 6:54:35 AM


" He is worthless. He is scum."

well said!

Posted by: kill all jihadis | 2008-04-28 7:02:40 AM


The unemployable and obviously manic depressive Khan , lashes out at any sort of normalcy , to prop up his sense of uselessness. He uses his ragtop prop as the adolescent idiots of Columbine did their trench coats , to defy and intimidate , but more significantly to justify their role as an outcast . Just another pathetic little coward .
And no the country can`t be saved from this infestation . It`s all over and these garbage heads know it ; their day has finally arrived.

Posted by: daveh | 2008-04-28 7:16:19 AM


Why deport him to Pakistan? That would aid and abet the enemy by sending him to the front lines!

Keep him in Toronto among his own kind. Maybe he'll launch a homicide attack on the subway or on a bus...assuming they're running!

He could then kill two stones with one bird (sorry, only Chuck Norris can do that!)

Posted by: Zebulon Pike | 2008-04-28 7:49:04 AM


BTW, doubt the Poet Bernard Barton would be pleased to be quoted by jihadists for allah.

Posted by: Liz J | 2008-04-28 7:59:05 AM


A few questions:

1. You've confirmed that this is indeed Naeem Muhammad Khan's website? I ask this because someone else publishes a whole blog in your name: shamyoshida.blogspot.com

2. You've confirmed this isn't blogger-bait? You've investigated the facts, called HRDC and confirmed he's on their rosters, called Facebook and confirmed his login traces back to an IP in Toronto, called CIC and confirmed that he arrived when he says he did. You've gone through a due diligence process of verifying the details have you? Who were your sources at HRDC, Facebook, and CIC? When did you place the calls? For that matter, how do we know YOU didn't build the Naeem Muhammad Khan Facebook page?

3. Why would I expect you to answer 1 or 2?

Posted by: Pattern Recognition | 2008-04-28 8:25:12 AM


Looks like you've touched a nerve, Adam. They're scurrying out in full accusatory force trying to defend the indefensible.
Let this serve as a reminder to us all as to what's living amongst us.

Posted by: Liz J | 2008-04-28 8:40:43 AM


Liz J, who's defending terrorism? I'm defending journalism. When someone posts to Facebook, that's hardly grounds for deportation or conviction.

Posted by: Pattern Recognition | 2008-04-28 8:54:59 AM


Agreed, PR. It would be a pretty scary country to live in if people were arrested for what was written on their facebook pages. Rule of Law, anyone?

Posted by: Angela | 2008-04-28 9:01:08 AM


Angela, law and due diligence can ruin a good blog. There have to be limits.

Posted by: Pattern Recognition | 2008-04-28 9:04:34 AM


I have no doubt that Mr. Naeem Muhammad Khan will soon be making a guest appearence on CBC's "Little Mosque on the Prairie".

Posted by: bocanut | 2008-04-28 9:48:53 AM


Angela wrote: "Agreed, PR. It would be a pretty scary country to live in if people were arrested for what was written on their facebook pages. Rule of Law, anyone?"

And would you be as understanding if the Facebook page said instead that Hitler was a hero and the Holocaust never happened? If you're prepared to accept the one, you must also accept the other. The fact of the matter is that we ALREADY live in a country where you can be arrested for the contents of your online musings. Nor would bin Laden have half the chic Leftish support currently enjoys if he were being pursued by anyone but Bush.

Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2008-04-28 10:03:25 AM


Or more likely , B-nut , he`d be appearing on 'The Hour ' with George Struomboul poop olous . After all , this prospective darling of the ' world class ' Toronto media, deserves our rapt attention . He`s just so hip and cool .

Posted by: daveh | 2008-04-28 10:10:30 AM


SM -

Yes, I would feel exactly the same way if the Facebook page in question said that Hitler was a hero.

Mr. Yoshida is advocating having this person arrested and deported today, without any type of investigation:

"I am calling on the Immigration Minister – and for that matter the Prime Minister – to make people jump. Go. Arrest this man. Put him on a plane. Send him back to Pakistan. There are other courses of action which would also be morally right and emotionally satisfying, but this one happens to be legal, so I’ll settle for that."

As PR pointed out, we're talking about a FACEBOOK page. This is not exactly concrete evidence. It's a dangerous thing to get so bogged down in fear that we throw our laws out the window.

Posted by: Angela | 2008-04-28 10:12:17 AM


Pattern Recognition wrote: "1. You've confirmed that this is indeed Naeem Muhammad Khan's website? I ask this because someone else publishes a whole blog in your name: shamyoshida.blogspot.com

2. You've confirmed this isn't blogger-bait? You've investigated the facts, called HRDC and confirmed he's on their rosters, called Facebook and confirmed his login traces back to an IP in Toronto, called CIC and confirmed that he arrived when he says he did. You've gone through a due diligence process of verifying the details have you? Who were your sources at HRDC, Facebook, and CIC? When did you place the calls? For that matter, how do we know YOU didn't build the Naeem Muhammad Khan Facebook page?"

Perhaps he didn't do all that research, PR, but I'm betting the National Post did. It looks really bad for a media outlet if one of their stories later turns out to be unsubstantiated and that they could have had the truth if only they dug a bit deeper. They interviewed him and possibly photographed him. Nobody wants to be another Dan Rathers.

If you feel that the person to whom you were responding had made an unsubstantiated accusation, your own is a hundred times more so.

Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2008-04-28 10:13:53 AM


Actually, Angela, depending on Khan's immigration status, the Minister may be entirely within the law to scoop him and dump him for any reason or no reason. The fact that he's inciting warfare and terrorism certainly isn't helping his case. If incitement to riot is a crime, why not incitement to terrorism?

For the record, I agree that both his writings and those of Holocaust deniers should be protected. The anti-H.D. crowd are doing their place in history no favours by showing the same inclinations towards book-burning as their Nazi tormentors. In all likelihood Khan is just a loudmouthed poser. But while I agree his Facebook page ought not to be grounds for deportation, if certain conditions are met, it actually might be.

Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2008-04-28 10:48:52 AM


Shane,

I'm pleasantly surprised to see that we kind of agree on something. There is an interesting quotation in the Post article regarding "incitement",

"My own view is that any sufficiently tight legal definition of incitement, likely to pass Charter muster, would have to link incitement very closely to real evidence of plots. So what we have in the current law, a language about "facilitation," probably captures the offense as well as anything is likely to do in an imperfect world. Mr. Khan is neither an inciter or a facilitator. He is just badly informed and misled, neither of which, thankfully, are crimes."

If there were evidence that Mr. Khan was involved in a "terrorist plot" then I'm 100% behind the idea of arresting him and kicking him out of the country. I just don't think that stupid facebook rantings should be grounds for deportation. We're lucky enough to live in a country that has a functional legal system (okay, "mostly" functional) and we shouldn't be willing to sacrifice this so easily. The type of fear mongering in which Mr. Yoshida is engaging is more harmful to our society than the hateful, ignorant rants of Mr. Khan.

Posted by: Angela | 2008-04-28 11:06:53 AM


"The type of fear mongering in which Mr. Yoshida is engaging is more harmful to our society than the hateful, ignorant rants of Mr. Khan."

Are you serious angela?


Posted by: dp | 2008-04-28 11:09:52 AM


I'm very serious, dp.

This person does not represent the views of Canadian Muslims. The publicity he is receiving is just serving to make him look ridiculous. As of now, he has no power.

If we do what Mr. Yoshida is proposing, and completely ignore the rule of law, rules of evidence, due process, etc. and arrest him and toss him out of the country we will have turned this ridiculous, ignorant little man into something powerful, something to be feared. Perhaps, in the eyes of some, into a martyr. Furthermore, this action will serve to cause further division within Canadian society, and perpetuate further negative stereotypes about Muslim Canadians.

And please, before you retort with something like: Angela thinks we should let terrorists stay in the country to avoid perpetuating negative stereotypes about Muslims! - please read what I said. We're not talking about a terrorist, or at least we have no evidence that he's a terrorist. If he's actually doing something tangibly harmful, then the authorities should find evidence to support that, and deport him.

Posted by: Angela | 2008-04-28 11:21:09 AM


Pattern, I did not mention deportation. Canada does not deport many people, probably only a handful in her entire history. If someone gets deported from here they've really got to be bad cats and it's quite a long process.

He'll be here as long as he wishes. Then if he decides to do something drastic, endangering or killing others, he'll still remain in one of our jails. Nothing terrible will be dealt him.

We've had murders like Carla Homolka get a university degree while in prison That's the Canadian way as set up by the bleeding heart Liberal Socialistic morons. It's always the fault of someone else when a wacko goes completely off.
Somehow, don't think anyone who does a heinous crime would be a good risk for hire, no matter what degree they acquire.

We don't need to look to the likes of this 23 year old misfit, Kahn, to find sympathy for the Taliban, look to the NDP who do not wish to fight
them and are all concerned about the treatment of Taliban prisoners. Basically insinuating our soldiers were enabling torture. Judging by what went on under Taliban rule, torture is a way of life.

Posted by: Liz J | 2008-04-28 11:30:48 AM


So Angela you deem vigilance to be fear-mongering. Furthermore you then jump to the conclusion that exposing a danger to national security is negative stereotyping Muslims. I find your comments and take much more concerning and wonder for whom you are working. There is nothing anywhere stating that this individual is representative of all Muslims in Canada, but by your comments you lump them together. That is a real insult to Muslims here who reject the Islamist ideology.

As to the subject I think a better question is why was he ever accepted in the first place. The fact that he has been unemployed is enough to raise this question, and the possibility of him being a terrorist supporter demands an answer from immigration.

Posted by: Alain | 2008-04-28 11:36:46 AM


"So Angela you deem vigilance to be fear-mongering."

Certainly not. I said that, in my opinion, Mr. Yoshida is engaging in fear-mongering. If you are of the opinion that he is being "vigilant" and would care to explain how so, I'm all ears.

"Furthermore you then jump to the conclusion that exposing a danger to national security is negative stereotyping Muslims."

Nope. Because, firstly, I have doubts about whether this person is a "threat to national security". If we're talking about throwing someone out of the country without due process of law, then yes - I think this could lead to negative stereotyping of Muslims. If the government were to take that course of action then the message could be interpreted as "these people are so dangerous that we need to get them out of the country so fast that we can't even take the time to undergo the proper procedures." And yes, I think that image would spread to the Muslim Canadian population as a whole. Take a look South of the border for an example.

"I find your comments and take much more concerning and wonder for whom you are working"

I'm not sure what to make of this, Alain. I'm not "working" for anyone that would be relevant to this discussion.

"There is nothing anywhere stating that this individual is representative of all Muslims in Canada"

I never said there was.

"but by your comments you lump them together. That is a real insult to Muslims here who reject the Islamist ideology."

I'm pretty sure I tried to do the exact opposite. If I failed in that, I apologize.

Posted by: Angela | 2008-04-28 11:52:24 AM


"The type of fear mongering in which Mr. Yoshida is engaging is more harmful to our society than the hateful, ignorant rants of Mr. Khan."

"Are you serious angela?"

I'd agree. Adam is capitulating; saving our so-called enemies the work of forcibly turning us into a cruel, oppressive society bent by the whims of bloated, knee-jerk reactionaries.

Why? Jealousy.

Adam has no personal freedom. None. Every move he makes, every word he types, every thought he thinks has to be filtered by his dominatrix mistress: ideology. She has him on a short leash. He's surrendered his own will, his very being to become an extension of a set of propositions, a thought system, a thesis.

So don't necessarily blame Adam, or anyone else here who will fire off conditioned responses. Don't feel sorry for them either. They gave over their free will to an ideological mistress, which shows just what they actually thought of freedom in the first place. They preferred comfort (nicknamed 'security') to freedom.

But I agree Angela, an ideology-slave who secretly rejects freedom is just as harmful as a jihadist who openly slams it.

Posted by: Unimpressed. | 2008-04-28 11:54:09 AM


If he really exists, this young man will be on each police boards across Canada and will be granted a 24/h surveillance. No need to shit your pants girls.

Posted by: Marc | 2008-04-28 12:40:05 PM


An example should be made of this "man." I don't care if what he did was really illegal or not. He's not a Citizen - the Minister would have it within her power to have him deported ASAP, if she were so inclined. She should do so immediately.

Yes, that's exactly the kind of message we should send. If people want to support our enemies in wartime, then they should get the hell out of the country - especially if they're immigrants. After all, as immigrants, they always have the option of going home.

Not the best option, to be sure. If we lived in an ideal world, we would deal with this man and his ilk with sterner methods - but we could do this and get away with it.

Indeed, the politics of it would be wonderful since fools like you, Angela, would cry out in sympathy for this sub-human scum and it would give the Tories, if they had the guts, to paint their opponents as the terrorist-sympathizers that they are.

Alas, like I said, we no longer have a country. As I've said before, when reproached for my attitude - I didn't betray Canada, Canada betrayed me and, in so doing, absolved me of any obligations of birth. If we cannot deal with this worthless inhuman garbage, than this country no longer belongs to people like you and me.

Posted by: Adam Yoshida | 2008-04-28 1:08:45 PM


. Because, firstly, I have doubts about whether this person is a "threat to national security". If we're talking-------- that we can't even take the time to undergo the proper procedures." And yes, I think that image would spread to the Muslim Canadian population as a whole. Take a look South of the border for an example."

What`s wrong with their method. They use an absolute judgemental call on what they are trying to accomplish . We could use more of that approach here. Letting the Muslims in Toronto or the Indians at Caledonia or the whites on Bay Street know that there are absolute consequences for their actions , instead of some prolonged and meaningless argument in some courtroom ,focuses the mind. Time to wake up . If the truth were known , probably the majority of law abiding Moslems would feel somewhat the same.

Posted by: daveh | 2008-04-28 1:31:06 PM


I'm sorry you feel that way, Adam. It's very sad.

You seem to be advocating some sort of violence against this person:

- If we were a culture with the self-confidence to do what is morally right we would… Well, I’ll stop there – lest I draw the scrutiny of the self-appointed defenders of the “rights” of our murderous enemies.
- There are other courses of action which would also be morally right and emotionally satisfying, but this one happens to be legal
- Not the best option, to be sure. If we lived in an ideal world, we would deal with this man and his ilk with sterner methods

I don't know if you're talking about death or torture or something less ominous, but in any case I find it very disturbing. This is a person who, as far as we know, has never committed a violent crime. According to the article, he specifically stated that he "does not support terrorist attacks". And yet you think that we should make an "example" of him, Adam? You don't even care whether or not he's done anything illegal?

I'm sorry that you feel so betrayed by this country, Adam. Consider me a fool if you like, but personally, I'm proud to live in a country that abides by the rule of law and treats people with compassion. As an intelligent person, there is no excuse for the kind of hateful nonsense you're spewing in the above post. If we all gave in to this type of irrational anger then there would be nothing left in this country worth defending.

Posted by: Angela | 2008-04-28 1:39:45 PM


"As I've said before, when reproached for my attitude - I didn't betray Canada,Canada betrayed me and, in so doing, absolved me of any obligations of birth."

So is it just me, or do you sort of see Adam imagining himself in a waistcoat, breeches and a cravat when he monologues?

Posted by: Pattern Recognition | 2008-04-28 2:51:54 PM


Pattern Recognition wrote: "So is it just me, or do you sort of see Adam imagining himself in a waistcoat, breeches and a cravat when he monologues?"

So what's your point, P.R.? That the only good ideas are new ones? Let me tell you something about ideas--they don't GET to be old unless they're good ones. Bad ones are simply forgotten.

Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2008-04-28 3:11:05 PM


"I'm sorry you feel that way, Adam. It's very sad.

You seem to be advocating some sort of violence against this person:"

D'ya think? Let's get real here. We all wish this guy harm.

Sweet Jesus, how incredibly sheltered is your life Angela? It's a fight for survival out there. Open your eyes. Once this conflict hits the streets it will roll through towns and villages, and you'd better be ready Angela.

Posted by: dp | 2008-04-28 3:44:55 PM


"It's a fight for survival out there. Open your eyes. Once this conflict hits the streets it will roll through towns and villages, and you'd better be ready Angela."

I know eh? Today I barely made it into work under sniper fire. And my usual parking spot was blocked off. Another damned car bomb. Oh wait. No. I guess a bomb didn't go off and there wasn't any sniper fire. There was a just a Facebook page. But I can see how you could mistake that for a bomb.

Ask your doctor about insulin injections. I can't make any promises here, but it's been known to treat some cases of persecutory paranoia.

Posted by: Pattern Recognition | 2008-04-28 3:55:14 PM


PR- I think I liked it better when roger kept you under wraps. Remember roger, the guy you threatened with violence a couple of times?

Posted by: dp | 2008-04-28 3:59:34 PM


DP, it's interesting that I say 'let's meet face to face' and you naturally assume it means 'let's meet for a knife fight in the alleyway'. You definitely want to ask about that insulin idea.

Posted by: Pattern Recognition | 2008-04-28 4:09:39 PM


PR said
"it's interesting that I say 'let's meet face to face' and you naturally assume it means 'let's meet for a knife fight in the alleyway'. "

Good point. However, your comment:

"So is it just me, or do you sort of see Adam imagining himself in a waistcoat, breeches and a cravat when he monologues?"


demonstrates the same inane ability towards projection.

Posted by: h2o273kk9 | 2008-04-28 4:23:43 PM


PR- I think I liked it better when roger kept you under wraps. Remember roger, the guy you threatened with violence a couple of times?

Posted by: dp | 28-Apr-08 3:59:34 PM

Guess PR is a flip-flopper, clearly the world is coming to an end as you know it dp and soon we will all be overrun.

Remember kids, you heard it from DP first, we're at war, nobody really knows against whom or what, but it's a war.

Posted by: Snowrunner | 2008-04-28 4:25:37 PM


I am sure CSIS is onto this Jihadi kid

Posted by: winston | 2008-04-28 4:33:38 PM


Snowy said

"Guess PR is a flip-flopper, clearly the world is coming to an end as you know it dp and soon we will all be overrun."

Speaking of exaggerated projections!

Posted by: h2o273kk9 | 2008-04-28 4:48:22 PM


"I know eh? Today I barely made it into work under sniper fire. "

Unfortunately Jane Creba wasn't so lucky.

Nor Justin Schwieg, a Queen's U student.

Bruce Keno Elijah McKenzie (aka Fuzzy J) confronted Schwieg and, after a brief confrontation, pulled out a knife and stabbed Schwieg six times: twice in the neck area, twice in his left arm and twice in his upper back.

Matthew Daly - A stocky “Oriental” man struck Matthew Daly three times in the head and once in his neck as the Burlington college student lay motionless on the ground, the jury at a high-profile murder trial has heard.

Stephen Papadopoulos, 26, Sam Nop, 24, Fadil (Neil) Mujku, 23, and Vuthy Chak, 23, all from Hamilton, have pleaded not guilty to first-degree murder in Daly's death.

In June 2007, in Scarborough, a Toronto suburb, an 18 year-old black man beat a 60+ year-old white man to death for allegedly calling him a nigger. He got 18 mos.

Sexual abuse at Cardinal McGuigan Secondary in TO.

"Fourteen students [all black] were handcuffed on school property this week and hauled off to jail after a 16-year-old [white] girl came forward with allegations of sexual assault and harassment dating back to September, 2004. Two were arrested last week. The fourteen boys and two girls -- who face charges of sexual assault, criminal harassment, forcible confinement and uttering threats -- have all been granted bail and are under house arrest."

Lester B. Pearson High School in Montreal, a gang of blacks beat two white girls.

Haitian gangs in Montreal -

"Journalists and even the police have been so intimidated by charges of racism that it is nearly impossible to report on the extent of black crime in Quebec. In one notorious case last fall, police arrested hundreds of Haitians who had forced women into a huge prostitution business. The women invariably white—were treated abominably. Some were branded like cattle. Others were forced to eat their own menstrual tampons. Some of the Haitians liked to shove a gun barrel up a woman's vagina and threaten to shoot her.

Police are normally eager to publicize big successes, but not in the charged, whites-are-always-to-blame racial atmosphere of Quebec. As the Montreal Gazette, which finally broke the whole sordid story explained (11/17/90), “police say they could hardly afford to call a news conference to say they had been arresting young Haitians by the hundreds.”

There is of course the US experience:

Percent of all racial hate crime offenders

White 21.0
Black 53.3
Other 13.3
Don't know 1.9
Residue 10.5

So, the majority of crimes committed out of racial hatred are perpetrated by blacks, but even this does not show the magnitude of the difference since the U.S. population is only 13% black. Doing the calculations, a black person is 13.3 times more likely than a white to commit this type of crime.

http://inductivist.blogspot.com/2008/04/blacks-are-13-times-more-likely-to.html

Just the tip of the iceberg.

Posted by: DJ | 2008-04-28 5:02:41 PM


DJ.

Correct me if I'm wrong but doesn't that group of "White" perpetrators of hate crime INCLUDE white hispanics BUT when it comes to counting victims of hate crime, white hispanics have their own category.

The result of which is to inflate white perpetrator to victim ratios significantly?

Posted by: h2o273kk9 | 2008-04-28 5:11:09 PM


Speaking of exaggerated projections!

Posted by: h2o273kk9 | 28-Apr-08 4:48:22 PM

Uhuuu:

quoth DP:

Sweet Jesus, how incredibly sheltered is your life Angela? It's a fight for survival out there. Open your eyes. Once this conflict hits the streets it will roll through towns and villages, and you'd better be ready Angela.
Posted by: dp | 28-Apr-08 3:44:55 PM

Guess it's only exaggerated projection when I say it, eh, H2? Selective reading again?

Posted by: Snowrunner | 2008-04-28 5:21:47 PM


"The result of which is to inflate white perpetrator to victim ratios significantly?"

Excellent insight H20.

The main point is resources as this piece points:

From the blog called “Latte Island”:

A few years ago I was raped by a Mexican illegal alien. I actually saw him following me, but my self-talk at that moment was, he looks like an ordinary day-laborer, those people never bother me. So I continued on my way, and moments later felt his arm pressing against my throat. I came very close to being killed. I know now that, if I’d been a regular reader of South Africa Sucks at that time, I would have said to myself, I am so not letting that mexitrash walk behind me, I’m out of here. I think many crime victims, including people who were killed, could have avoided trouble if they’d had the moral clarity that racist humor provides.

http://latteisland.blogspot.com/2008/04/why-south-africa-sucks-should-keep.html

Resources are limited either at a governmental or individual level. Political correctness dictates the assumption of not guilty, even though statistical evidence, suggests strongly that at the very least an individual should err on the side of caution because there is no resource available to separate the "good" from the "bad". There is no luxury of a mistake because the penalty is far too high.

Posted by: DJ | 2008-04-28 5:24:13 PM


Snowy,

"Guess it's only exaggerated projection when I say it, eh, H2? Selective reading again?"

Not at all. Both are exaggerated projections. Only you had the poor taste to point out DPs already. I just leveled the playing field by pointing yours out.

Posted by: h2o273kk9 | 2008-04-28 5:30:47 PM


Not at all. Both are exaggerated projections. Only you had the poor taste to point out DPs already. I just leveled the playing field by pointing yours out.

Posted by: h2o273kk9 | 28-Apr-08 5:30:47 PM

What's with the Liberal attitude H2? Levelling the playing field? I'd better be careful, you may slide into a socialist corner here, before you know it you actually want to raise taxes to pay for social programs.

Posted by: Snowrunner | 2008-04-28 5:35:00 PM


DJ said

"Political correctness dictates the assumption of not guilty, even though statistical evidence, suggests strongly that at the very least an individual should err on the side of caution because there is no resource available to separate the "good" from the "bad". "

Au contraire my friend. The assumption in Canada is non-white = not guilty.

This is on another thread at this very web blog.

"The denial of racism used by so many whites in positions of authority ranging from the supervisor in a work place to the chief of Police and ministers of government must be understood for what it is: an example of White hegemonic power of those considered 'other.'"

In other words, guilty of being white."

I do, however, agree with your cautionary advice.

Posted by: h2o273kk9 | 2008-04-28 5:35:25 PM


Snowy

"What's with the Liberal attitude H2? Levelling the playing field? I'd better be careful, you may slide into a socialist corner here, before you know it you actually want to raise taxes to pay for social programs."

I've always tried to be fair. Raising taxes on people who earn more simply because they earn more is absolutely not fair or equal. It is discriminatory.

What's with your exaggerated projections like the one you just ascribed to me wanting raise taxes if I'm not careful?

Posted by: h2o273kk9 | 2008-04-28 5:38:57 PM


Snowy,

"What's with the Liberal attitude H2?"

Was that a freudian slip. Liberal with a capital L...as in Liberal party?

Posted by: h2o273kk9 | 2008-04-28 5:43:33 PM


Please, settle down, all of you. There is no need to call for violence against anyone (this is what got this publication in trouble with the law before).

I agree, and I have said so on my blog, that Khan should be prosecuted for inciting acts of terror and even murder. His "speech" is not protected under any freedom I am aware of.

I also agree that, given his immigrant status, he could easily be deported (and should be).

Angela strikes me as weird, with all due respect. Why is she standing up for someone who has said he'd like to kill people like her (i.e., all who are not fundamentalist Islamists)? Khan and his positions are completely indefensible, Angela. I hope you'll never have to pay the price for your short-sightedness.

Posted by: Werner Patels | 2008-04-28 5:48:46 PM



The comments to this entry are closed.